The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Once again, the articles about unemployment which all ignore the U-6.

It is 9.9 percent, and 94 and 1/2 million people are out of the workforce.

Once again, pigeons are considered the number one pest bird problem in the United States and around the world.

It is estimated that there are 400 million pigeons worldwide and that the population is growing rapidly together with increased urbanization. All are unemployed.

To a socialist like Clowntoker, the state of the economy is a meaningless abstraction.

To be content, Clownhicker needs only the secure prospect of his Title XVI check in the mailbox every month.

johnforbes wrote:Once again, the articles about unemployment which all ignore the U-6.

It is 9.9 percent, and 94 and 1/2 million people are out of the workforce.

The asininity of Forbestardo in full effect. How many times has this bullshit been debunked?

I suppose that this stupid jackass likes to post stupid shit just for the sake of posting stupid shit.

Do you like to draw attention to yourself by posting stupid shit?

You and Justme are sprinting down the highway going in the wrong direction in an effort to win the race where the victor receives the darwin award with distinction! No wonder why Trump is the leading GOP candidate...

:roll:

Come now, young Elkin.

This is NOT bull.

Rather, it is part of the info put out by the Dept of Labor.

If the so-called headline number is one you like, then you cannot avoid the figures which come right along with it.

Do you understand that, or are you just too stupid?

As to employment, what investor wouldn't like to see it healthy? I would, but it isn't.

No wonder why Trump is the leading GOP candidate

Clown, it's post like yours that insures Trump is doing so well.

elklindo69 wrote:

johnforbes wrote:Once again, the articles about unemployment which all ignore the U-6.

It is 9.9 percent, and 94 and 1/2 million people are out of the workforce.

The asininity of Forbestardo in full effect. How many times has this bullshit been debunked?

I suppose that this stupid jackass likes to post stupid shit just for the sake of posting stupid shit.

Do you like to draw attention to yourself by posting stupid shit?

You and Justme are sprinting down the highway going in the wrong direction in an effort to win the race where the victor receives the darwin award with distinction! No wonder why Trump is the leading GOP candidate...

:roll:

Debunked? Where? Link please. Prove you are not a liar.

I full well know that there are many, many people not working because they have dropped out of the workforce.
I am one of them.

Why don't you get a job as a surly Wal-Mart greeter, TVD? That one would be perfect for you. :lol:

Still no proof that "this has been debunked".

Regardless of my employment status.

The info I posted has not only not been debunked, but it is fresh data from the Dept of Labor -- the very folks who put out the so-called headline unemployment rate now being touted on TV.

Elkin may be too stupid to read what the Dept of Labor puts out, but the rest of us are not.

Forbes never mentioned the U-6 until Obama came along.

Another coincidence, I'm sure. :lol:

Grog wrote:Forbes never mentioned the U-6 until Obama came along.

Another coincidence, I'm sure. :lol:

And if a conservative gets elected Forbestardo will go back to U-3 and those 90 million people who are out of the work force will never be mentioned again...

:lol:

Probably a safe bet that if a Repub gets in, Forbes will get self-C&P amnesia and have no idea what the U-6 is. :lol:

Elkin and Grog are both leftist morons. They are also incorrect.

An investor must look at the economy in a cold, rational manner regardless of what his political views might be.

If there was an enormous gap between the headline rate and the U-6, and if 94 million were out of the labor force, and if there were 12 million illegals, and if the debt was approaching 20 trillion with my favorite person in the White House, my criticism of the situation would be identical.

No, it wouldn't, Forbes. Some of us also remember you denying we were in a recession up until Obama took office and then suddenly you said there was indeed a recession and Obama caused it overnight. :lol:

Incredibly, back then johnforbes (Mr. Investor) claimed there was no recession because the government hadn't SAID there was a recession. :lol:

Let me explain how recessions are declared.

Often, they are over before people are aware of them because they are defined via retrospective data.

As to 2008, it was worse than a recession.

Indeed, these days it is called the Great Recession.

What was it to an investor?

It was a grand opportunity, the best one of my lifetime, and luckily I remained rational enough as an investor to take advantage of it by rebalancing throughout the period from January to April of 2009.

Did I know at the time that stocks would rise almost steadily for years after that? Of course not. But, with the Dow in the 6000s, I figured it was time to rebalance and fortunately that proved sensible.

Around here, and in most of the U.S., you were about the only one that required "retrospective" data. lol

No wonder you and JustFreedManIntrepidMe are investment buddies, probably with Bernie Madoff. :lol:

Come on, Grog, take a moment and do some Googling.

Look up the definition of a recession.

You don't have to come back to apologize, but at least you'll be a bit better educated.

I don't have to look it up. I've lived through several, including the one of '08 that most people saw spooling up in '07.

If so, then you know the definition of a recession, and you know how one is defined.

So now you comprehend my prior remarks.

Since any investor would understand what I typed above, I must conclude you don't invest.

You should, for the sake of your own future and that of any family members you might care about.

I invest in all kinds of things. Just not ones controlled by guys who look out for their own investments first. :lol:

You probably believe Bernie Madoff was misunderstood and unrighteously vilified. Or because he got caught, you might be on the "Bad, Bernie. Bad" bandwagon.

Doesn't sound as if you know anything at all about investing.

Your loss.

You could have taken something of value (Robert Ruark's title) from this thread.

I know enough not to turn money over to guys who are more interested in their bottom line than yours.

I wouldn't give discretionary account control to any broker.